| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2010 01:15:05 PM · #1 |
Unsatisfied client, arrogant photog, JB laying the law
"where is your 28-70?"
Booyah.
Message edited by author 2010-03-02 13:15:46. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:29:46 PM · #2 |
I don't think the shots were that terrible but the defendant also contradicted herself.
"I've done hundreds of wedding and there were never any problems"
"She didn't meet me at a Bridal show. This was my first time".
Unless I misheard something.
She also peed off JJB and that is a big no no. :)
eta: Of course the only pictures we saw in the clip were the exterior shots and not any of the actual ceremony. The interior shots at the reception all looked like snapshots though.
Message edited by author 2010-03-02 13:32:05. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:40:02 PM · #3 |
| It was her mouth that did her in~! |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:42:17 PM · #4 |
Shouldn'tya had a 1D or something?
It was a great episode! |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:44:23 PM · #5 |
Joe takes down another bad photog:
Part 1
Part 2 |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:46:04 PM · #6 |
| My question is what wedding photog in their right mind would agree to go on reality TV to settle this type of dispute?? One that doesn't want to ever be a wedding photog, that's who. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:50:04 PM · #7 |
the shots they showed were terrible! What was with that flower vignette thing they had going on? They were very 1980s and for $1300 I'd expect a lot better.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:50:26 PM · #8 |
| Dayum! Judge Joe is all up in her photography! |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:53:38 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
It was her mouth that did her in~! |
Nah, she would have lost anyway...
Her mouth changed the judgement from $1,000 to $2,500 though... that was slick. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:56:40 PM · #10 |
What "professional" photographer doesn't know the speed of their 70-300 lens?
Joe knows what speed it should be. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:58:47 PM · #11 |
Interesting!
Is that one of the court shows where the show (I think) pays the settlements? In other words, the photographer had nothing to lose but face?
The photographers are not going to get much business after those performances!
|
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:01:16 PM · #12 |
WOW.. I would never in a million years hire ladies like that.
The only thing I believe, is that they weren't allowed using flash in the church. All of the churches I've been to don't allow flash, but that's why I shoot with a 5d mk2 haha :) |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:04:23 PM · #13 |
5d2 and a 2.8 lens.
And someone who claims to have shot hundreds of weddings, yet doesn't know what speed their lens is? Whatever. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:09:39 PM · #14 |
| Pretty much! I can't imagine how awful the ceremony shots look considering what she was shooting with and how dark churches can be! |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:14:34 PM · #15 |
The facial expression of the woman in blue with the big hair behind the photographer are hilarious.
Start watching at about 3:30. The real payoff is at 3:45.
Message edited by author 2010-03-02 14:14:55. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:21:33 PM · #16 |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:28:40 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by sillygoat:
WOW.. I would never in a million years hire ladies like that.
The only thing I believe, is that they weren't allowed using flash in the church. All of the churches I've been to don't allow flash, but that's why I shoot with a 5d mk2 haha :) |
I haven't been in a church that didn't allow flash... that would be a nightmare. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:30:30 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
The facial expression of the woman in blue with the big hair behind the photographer are hilarious. |
LOL |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:34:33 PM · #19 |
Cant wait to get home to see this :P
screen cap is hilarious |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:35:18 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
Originally posted by sillygoat:
WOW.. I would never in a million years hire ladies like that.
The only thing I believe, is that they weren't allowed using flash in the church. All of the churches I've been to don't allow flash, but that's why I shoot with a 5d mk2 haha :) |
I haven't been in a church that didn't allow flash... that would be a nightmare. |
Ya, it's definitely not fun. Especially if the church is extremely dark, but I usually talk to the b&g about it during our consultation and let them know if it is extremely dark that their will most likely be some grain, but that it's not necessarily a bad thing :) |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:35:37 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Tez:
"where is your 28-70?"
Booyah. |
HAHAHAHAHA
|
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:36:10 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by larryslights:
The facial expression of the woman in blue with the big hair behind the photographer are hilarious. |
LOL |
LMFAO, how can you NOT know what speed your lens are?
|
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:48:43 PM · #23 |
| I loved the part, "What f-stop did you use?" He asked that a couple of times. She was probably thinking, "Hell if I know, my camera setting was set to that little green box." |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 02:51:15 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
I don't think the shots were that terrible but the defendant also contradicted herself.
"I've done hundreds of wedding and there were never any problems"
"She didn't meet me at a Bridal show. This was my first time".
Unless I misheard something.
|
You didn't miss-hear, just placed to separate comments at two different times from two different people into the same context. Yes, they probably have done hundreds of weddings but they have only done one bridal show. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 03:11:21 PM · #25 |
| Wow. Credit the judge for being THAT lenient. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 02:43:36 AM EDT.
